``Everywhere you go, always take the weather with you,’’ goes the much loved Crowded House song.

Cartoon by Jon Kudelka in The Australian www.kudelka.com.au

But if you’re in politics, it’s more often the weather which takes you and its colossal force can sweep you away.

Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott should remember this because climate and climate related politics have shaped many a political turn over the years.

It is not a new thing. In fact, the nation was born during the great Federation Drought of the late 1890s which inevitably moulded the economy and politics at the time.

More recently in 1983, Malcolm Fraser’s seven year government fell on the back of a bad drought which, like our more recent experience, was punctuated by ferocious and deadly bushfires.

The drought helped drive unemployment and inflation unacceptably high. Of course, the real weather was not the only factor. By his own assessment, Bob Hawke was a force of nature. But just as the harsh summer winds had fanned the Ash Wednesday fires, Fraser faced an electoral headwind robbing him of momentum.

Twenty four years later, the weather helped another of Labor’s ascendant stars, Kevin Rudd.

Unlike Fraser, John Howard could point to a strong economy but it was not enough. Another prolonged drought was this time attributed to climate change. Harsh water restrictions prevailed in the suburbs. Parched lawns became a potent symbol as Kevin Rudd cast the government as out of touch with what others viewed as obvious.

With the value of hindsight, Howard’s actions in response to climate change were reasonably substantial. Take the 2007 Water Act for example. While the Gillard Government has stopped short of making changes, it has if anything, looked to ratchet-down the environment-first provisions in the act. And don’t forget that John Howard went to the 2007 election fully committed to an emissions trading scheme. But it was all too late. The political wind had turned.

It was ironic then, that it was also the climate - although this time, the politics of climate - that de-masted Kevin Rudd’s leader-ship less than a term later.

Rudd’s cynical abandonment of emissions trading as his political raison d’etre, left the government adrift in a sea of doubt.

And through all of this the drought continued, making Rudd’s climate equivocations seem all the more detached from reality.

Which brings us to the present where the argument over the flood levy is the latest heady combo of politics and weather.

Here the dark clouds bode most ill for Tony Abbott. Why? Because, Julia Gillard is odds-on to get her $1.8 billion levy through. She has already secured the support of the two independents: WA National, Tony Crook, and renegade former Nat, Bob Katter. Katter said he was ``boxed in’’ and in the end, could not stand between his cyclone-devastated constituents and vital Commonwealth assistance.

The other independents may be further removed but they face essentially the same equation.
Tony Abbott however, is boxed in too. He banked everything on casting the levy as a new tax. But like the weather that brought these tragedies about, public sentiment is not easily directed. A recent Newspoll showed 55 per cent of people support it. And having promised a levy of his own to pay for a generous paid parental leave scheme, even his opposition on principle is shaky.

The Newspoll kicked off what turned out to be a rough week for Mr Abbott made worse when it emerged his (largely unnecessary) alternative savings measures relied mainly on deferrals rather than cuts; did not nearly match the levy in the 2011/12 year (the shortfall is around $1 billion); and involved cutting an anti-terrorism aid program in Indonesia started by the Howard Government. That idea caused an internal rift with his deputy and foreign affairs spokeswoman, Julie Bishop, the full ramifications of which are not yet known.

For Julia Gillard though, it will not be straight forward. Greens and independents are upset at the axeing of carbon abatement programs. Ms Gillard says a carbon price will be a better way to address climate change. But that is a big leap and relies on getting a carbon price in place this year which will not be easy. Not least because it lacks political legitimacy after being expressly ruled out by Ms Gillard before the election.

The lesson is that while you can’t change the weather, you can certainly get your responses to it wrong.

Cartoon by Jon Kudelka - www.kudelka.com.au

82 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Against the Man says:

      05:36am | 12/02/11

      No matter what the weather, Rudd/Gillards are duds. What is the topic of the week? Health care reform? What is the solution of the week? Nothing as usual.

    • SteveM says:

      06:05am | 12/02/11

      Hey Mark, what about the newspoll that said Liberal ahead?

    • emel says:

      09:41am | 14/02/11

      SteveM, the poll you refer to must be the one showing Julia 10 points ahead of Tony. Right?

    • acotrel says:

      06:51am | 12/02/11

      Scientists are used to dealing with uncertainty in data.  They base their conclusions on probability, and use tests such as the null hypothesis to accept or reject them.  There is a likelihood that AGW is happening, and with the potential consequences this constitutes a risk.  We all have a duty of care to manage the risk in an appropriate manner.  Denial doesn’t serve that purpose!

    • Dissident says:

      11:02am | 12/02/11

      acotrel (is that deliberately lower case like e e cummings?) - People who disagree with the idea of AGW aren’t in denial - for the most part they have reviewed the facts and decided that climate change is not materially driven by actions of mankind. For instance, the medieval warm period occurred prior to industrialisation - so this tells us that something else is far more important in determining global temperature than emissions. But that is an argument for another day.

      It is time that you accept that a significant proportion of the population don’t think that climate change is materially affected by the actions of humanity. A significant enough proportion that the greatest moral dilemma of our time has been put on the backburner.

      Duty of care is to look both ways before you cross the street - it isn’t crippling your economy when nobody else does, to solve a problem that we aren’t even remotely sure is caused by us in the first place. Putting a carbon tax or an emissions trading scheme in alone would be a dereliction of the Government’s duty of care.

      But this isn’t a post to rain on your parade, acotrel. I have an idea for all the people who are online hammering on about the need for us to ‘do something’ about climate change. You should heed your own message.

      If you and all the believers are so damn sure that anthropogenic climate change is occurring, why don’t you invest all the time you spend insisting that somebody else fix it (the government) and take actual steps to help with the problem. Collectively, for all the hours you (believers) have spent, if you had researched better alternative ways to burn coal or - heaven forbid - better treatment of nuclear waste you could significantly have reduced emissions intensity and made a real difference.

      Just like the Chinese who have intelligently and pragmatically decided that emissions intensity is more important than arbitrary caps, you could have actually made a difference. Maybe you could research more fuel efficient engines in automobiles, maybe you could research more efficient electrical appliances, the possibilities are endless.

    • David C says:

      01:10pm | 12/02/11

      I insure my house for that very reason, costs about $1,500 a year. Would I do it if it cost $50,000 a year?

    • Vaunted says:

      09:28am | 13/02/11

      Acotrel, I quoted this elsewhere in Punch yesterday as it sums up rather neatly what many of us have long suspected the whole carbon pricing furore is all about, from no less an authority than an IPCC official:

      “...But one must say clearly that we redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. Obviously, the owners of coal and oil will not be enthusiastic about this. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy anymore”. — Ottmar Edenhofer, Neue Zürcher Zeitung, 14 November 2010

      (I don’t have the link anymore, but Google it if you like).

      So, at last we are told that climate ‘action’ is not really about well-intentioned dealing effectively with climatic uncertainties or even probabilities. It is, from the mouth of an official of that body dishonestly purporting to be most concerned on our behalf, effectively a UN scam being foisted upon us by underhanded, dishonest, duplicitous, self-selving, lying political toadies to an external would-be world government, supported wholeheartedly by the likes of Kevin Rudd and his easily influenced and unquestioning loyal comrades of the Australian left, including (now) Julia Gillard. 

      Are we really so stupid, so naive, as to faithfully follow along?

    • TChong says:

      07:27am | 12/02/11

      “we’ll all be rooned ”  - Hanrahan.

    • Super D says:

      07:30am | 12/02/11

      Toady we see that Gillard, having promised that no government she leads would introduce a carbon tax, planning on introducing a carbon tax during the term of this parliament.  Talk about misjudging the political climate.

      Mrs Abbott can start measuring new curtains for the lodge / kirribilli house.

    • Super size me says:

      08:28am | 12/02/11

      I wonder if Abbott will stay in politics after he is soon dislodged from the liberal leadership?

    • Norma says:

      09:16am | 12/02/11

      You beat me to it Super D! I find it amazing that so few writing about Gillards new carbon plans bother to remember that famous quote “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”
      Had she told the truth, the new drapes would well and trulyhave been hung.
      Gillards likes to suggest she had to do this to gain the supprt of the Greens. Drean on Julia. No one will fall for that one.

    • Jedi_T says:

      10:47am | 12/02/11

      Norma, Labourites tend to see these things through rose-tinted glasses (coined term, I know, shut up!),
      They only come out Abbott bashing.
      Nothing constructive comes from Labor.

    • Vaunted says:

      11:16am | 12/02/11

      The latest ALP focus group, convened no doubt somewhere such as downstairs in The Age building, has determined that in order to appear all decisive, steely eyed and leader-like, and to have some chance of retaining the electoral support of the extreme comrades, Ms Gillard should act decisively on Kevin Rudds’s greatest moral issue after all.

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      12:37pm | 12/02/11

      I think that Julia Gillard will get away with with breaking her promise of no carbon tax, just as John Howard got away with his introduction of the GST.

      Howard’s instrument for the GST was the mandate he got from an early election and Gillard’s instrument will be the Commission on Climate Change, headed by the palaeontologist Tim Flannery.

      Gillard is likely to say that her government is introducing a carbon tax on the recommendation of the Commision on Climate Change. Flannery will have to wear the blame. That’s political expediency for you.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      02:22pm | 12/02/11

      Jedi_T says:10:47am; “Labourites” I like that! it has a kick ass ring to it.

      Super D says:07:30am; What were those comments “Dead, Buried, Cremated” hmmmm unfortunately the problem with that statement is if it was buried you would have to dig it back up to cremate it. And there is the key to that whole statement, it is missing “Dig it back up” it’s only a matter of time… WC (which ainlt World Cup) will be back on the table and that nasty lil rascally rAbbott will try and lay it on again.

    • persephone says:

      03:13pm | 12/02/11

      Jedi

      ‘Robert Burns; O would some power the giftie gie us to see ourselves as others see us.’

      Let’s correct your post:

      Norma, Liberal supporters tend to see these things through rose-tinted glasses (coined term, I know, shut up!),
      They only come out Gillard bashing.
      Nothing constructive comes from Liberal.

      See what I did there? And it still makes perfect sense!.

    • persephone says:

      06:54am | 13/02/11

      Vaunted

      oh, so nothing to do with a consistent promise to tackle climate change?

      Fair enough, then.

      Yoiu want to call black white, go ahead.

      Geoffrey

      even more so, as she faces a hung Parliament, which means the government didn’t get a mandate to introduce a carbon price.

      This means she has to get enough votes on the HoR for actiion on climate change for it to happen,

      Instead of one party imposing its view on the country and claiming a mandate, a way of pricing carbon will be negotiated on the floor of the House, so that a majority of the elected representatives of the people will make the decision.

      Can’t get more democratic than that.

    • Steve Smith says:

      08:33am | 13/02/11

      Jedi_T
      And you Liberalites don’t come out Gillard bashing?
      And what has come out constructive with the Liberal party, 12 years in office and the cut back on hospitals,schools, roads and other infastructure sho they could boost about huge budget surpluses.
      And where do you think those huge surpluses came frome>, they came from ripping money out of vital infastructure.

    • Gregg says:

      11:46am | 13/02/11

      @ Geoffrey Chaucer,

      The only reason Gillard may now get away with her Carbon Tax is that she has put it off until 2012 when she’ll have the numbers in the Senate with support of the Greens.
      The Greens however may want more than she is prepared to deliver!

      Meanwhile, why not review your history and Howard took the GST to an election and one an election with it proposed.

      Gillard meanwhile, not only garotted Krudd for hos dropping of it but then went on and specifically stated during her election that there would be no Carbon Tax in the next term of government and so what did we get coming up as soon as she had to meet with Brown on Green stuff?

      Yes, she actually was blatantly lying to the Australian public and no two ways about it.
      She lies and just keeps on lying.

    • Geoffrey Chaucer says:

      02:38pm | 13/02/11

      Gregg,

      My history needs no review. I said what you pointed out, albeit in more detail than me: Howard had a mandate to introduce the GST. Satisfied now?

    • Calm Hands on the Tiller says:

      07:43am | 12/02/11

      Gillard is making good progress piloting the ship of state.
      The clouds kicked up by the coalition with their rort and waste nonsense have turned out to be a storm in a teacup and are now mere vanishing wisps behind.
      The pursuing pirates who would have seized the ship of state and plundered her are fighting amongst themselves and taking on water. All is right in the world.

    • old timer says:

      09:15am | 12/02/11

      What this has to be the most incompetent government since Whitlam and maybe even worse it’s only the levels of employment saving us from disaster and that’s a direct result of the coalition. ETS, no carbon tax, fuel watch, grocery watch, health deal, cash for clunkers, pink bats, green car scheme, solar energy rebates, ber, free computer delays and cost blow out, east Timor detention centre! soccer world cup bid oh and we will keep our border safe and deter asylum seekers. And in the 8 months of Julia I cant think of one success. I honestly cant think of any government that has failed so often! PS I’m not a died in the wool conservative voter I just hate seeing billions not millions of our money just wasted.

    • Norma says:

      09:18am | 12/02/11

      Haven’t caught up with today’s Rudd story?

    • Joan says:

      09:43am | 12/02/11

      In the galley neath a picture of the smiling queen-like coiffured-GG-  Shorten is sharpening his knife and Paul Howes is making a plank. The bunch of misfits independents are busy scratching their heads more confused than usual as they try to fathom Gillard plan .. a plan. filled with scratch outs, blotches, changes of direction .... which way to go??? On the poop deck Gillard draped in the Australian flag , snivelling   is plotting to grab taxes the more the better .... from mining sector , the levy, and carbon tax ( now under rule of Gaia Man Flannery) .... Greens Bob Brown ordering comands .  Meanwhile Australia heading straight for the rocks

    • Jedi_T says:

      10:42am | 12/02/11

      Calm Hands, WTF!
      Julia’s boat is sinking, and quickly. I clearly remember on several occasions, her and her colleagues declaring there would be no such thing as a CARBON TAX while she was in power.
      I wake this morning to find she lied. Not a pretty white lie, but a big green one.
      You Labourites need to wake the F**k Up!
      Abbott & the Liberals may be arguing but like anything in real life, people disagree, thats what makes us different, we each have an opinion, and i’m sure glad that in the Liberal Camp, they can express that opinion. Especially freely.

    • Calm Hands on the Tiller says:

      11:34am | 12/02/11

      Carbon tax good
      Resources tax good
      Conservatives bailing water out of their mad hat regatta ship
      Simple really

    • Concerned Citizen says:

      11:37am | 12/02/11

      you realise the SS Australia has already been plundered

      That’s why redbeard is asking for donations ie levies, tax’s
      yargh me matey’s we won’t be able to afford a plank soon.

    • Chris L says:

      09:34am | 13/02/11

      It’s true, she may have just as well said “Never, ever.” about the Carbon Tax or simply described it as a “Non-core promise”. Just because the Liberals have a history of lying about their plans doesn’t mean Labor should get away with it.

      Both parties have betrayed the people they supposedly work for, and the last federal election made it apparent that the public are aware of this. We should take advantage of the opportunity to research alternative parties and send our votes elsewhere.

    • Joan says:

      08:16am | 12/02/11

      Having voted in Gillard and her pack of misfits to form government it would seem that the women and men of Australia voted against Abbotts parental care levy… he should ditch it ....no egg on his face .... the people have spoken .

    • dopes says:

      08:35am | 12/02/11

      When everyone is getting smashed with rising costs because of her carbon tax etc, imagine the sight on TV of her and Swan angrily denying that there will be a carbon tax (just before the election). I would make a new advertisment out of it for the coalition. Keep reminding the people why their situation is so. It would make me pull out a bigger baseball bat come election time. Not sure how the ALP or their supporters think they can survive it.

    • Jedi_T says:

      10:54am | 12/02/11

      They think it because they are smug, arrogant hacks. They love being able to relate to a govt that acts like they do!

    • john says:

      09:33am | 12/02/11

      @Calm Hands on the Tiller

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TolMnucRX0&feature=related

      It was taking on water when Rudd was captain when he hit a climate change iceberg and Labor spent all the surplus fuel, Rudd is in a lifeboat trying to get to the UN, and Gillard’s been left to go down with the ship, the pirates wont save her either!

    • mary monica roche says:

      09:37am | 12/02/11

      climatic change has changed history.
      In anicient history , Climatic change led directly the the rise of the Roman Empire and the rise of the Chinese Empire.
      Now in Australian modern history, it will now directly lead to the Labor Party Empire or the Greens Empire.

    • Stephy says:

      09:50am | 12/02/11

      Now Gillard’s found a way to tax the air we breathe. Gotta be a first for Governments everywhere. Nothing in life is free, not now after we have to pay for our air too.

    • Calm Hands on the Tiller says:

      11:37am | 12/02/11

      No,
      That would be conservative policy. Sell of the water, sell of the air, sell off any infrastructure not nailed down and give it out the proceeds in middle class welfare to get votes the only way they know. -Buy them.

    • Stephy says:

      08:16pm | 12/02/11

      As opposed to Labors strategic planning of “Give out the surplus, increase welfare payments for the pension so lazy bums who don’t want to work and would rather bludge off the government have a reason to vote them back in again.” I guess it’s all part of their cunning plan, since more people are turning to welfare instead of getting training and a good job to live off. I wonder how the govt will get by when everyone decides to get free money from the govt for something or other and there’s no one around to work to provide the taxes for these lucky people to take. Middle class welfare? At least they’re paying the tax to provide it. Getting some of their own hard earned money back.

      I’d much rather support a government that isn’t going to make me pay for something I don’t believe in. Can you imagine the reaction if the Pope became PM and started taxing people every time they sinned, regardless of whether or not they believed in God? Good revenue though. I’m surprised Gillard hasn’t tried it. She must be kicking herself for declaring being an athiest.

    • Mouse says:

      08:17pm | 12/02/11

      Hey Stephy, in SA the government have put a tax on rainwater! Yep, farms in the Clare area have been told they must have a meter put on their dams and will pay a tax on water usage. Labor now tax us on the bloody rain that falls! I’m too scared to say any more “What else can they tax us on?” because I’m sure they will find something!

    • persephone says:

      01:26pm | 13/02/11

      Stephy

      yes, shocking, isn’t it!

      Paying the pension to people who have worked for decades and paid their taxes, just because they get too old.

      We should look at employing them in other ways, rather than let them dodder around, relying on our taxes to give them a couple of hundred dollars a week so they can live the high life.

      Just because you’re 86 years old, half blind and have only one leg is no excuse to bludge on the government, after all.

    • Stephy says:

      02:42pm | 13/02/11

      You’re so right, persephone, it isn’t! How obervant of you, to notice that they worked for decades and got old. Because there’s no such thing as a superannuation, is there? No one actually saves in this day and age, do they? I mean, why save for the future when you can have the shiny new car NOW! We should totally pay people for their lack of foresight. It’s a skill that should be encouraged.

    • persephone says:

      04:47pm | 13/02/11

      Stephy

      most of those on the pension now worked in an era where superannuation was not universal, and was generally only available to those who worked in the public service.

      Super only became universal under Keating, so even people who are retiring now don’t necessarily have high rates of super.

      Regardless, many of those who are on pensions now paid taxes for over forty years (generally at much higher rates than we pay today) , in the belief that this entitled them to a pension in their old age.

    • Stephy says:

      09:34pm | 13/02/11

      My town is host to a St. Laurence Park (retirement village) in it’s centre. The park draws a lot of elderly to live in the town. When I was younger, we lived opposite from an old, widowed man and next to him lived an elderly scottish couple. Lovely people. All over the age of 80. None of them working. None of them on the pension, either. They lived using what they’d saved from their decades of work, for when they retired.
      My nanna, however, received superannuation. She was a nurse, so I’m not sure if that comes under public service or not (as she worked at a private hospital), but she didn’t receive the pension either.
      Now, this is just my personal experience. But the people mentioned above seemed to live in relative comfort, without the government handing them money. They can’t be the only ones out there. Why the necessity to pay people for getting old? The elderly I know saved up funds for retirement and never complained how hard life was without government assistance.
      I can understand the disability pension. I think it needs to be reviewed, but I can understand it. I can’t understand single mothers pension, youth allowance, job seekers pension, etc. I’m sure they all have a shiny, nice reason for existing and I must look like a cruel, heartless bitch for opposing them, but from what I’ve seen of them in action, it’s money for doing squat. You can’t solve the worlds problems by throwing money at them.

      I used to be in a family that got the pension, by the way, so I know what it’s like to rely on it. But because we got the pension, my mother never got a job. She never had any motivation to. The govt was handing her money for being a single mum and having a disability (OCD). Now as I’m the taxpayer that doesn’t receive a whiff of govt support, I’m seeing things from both sides.

    • JT says:

      10:07am | 12/02/11

      One truly has to wonder what reality Mark Kenny actually lives in. This week was disastrous for Labor and it has ended today with the complete abandonment of the health reforms (insert grandiose statement about them here) and the announcement today of you guessed it ANOTHER TAX!.

      I guess I should not expect any different, afterall they were all declaring Kevin Rudd safe the day he was stabbed in the back.

    • biff says:

      10:14am | 12/02/11

      All the blather escaping from our alleged leaders is just that: blather. Not one of them has bothered to acquire a meteorologist’s certificate. I’m sure their knowledge is limited to watching the weather report on the 6pm news.

    • GB says:

      10:17am | 12/02/11

      The sheer arrogance and hypocrisy of this unelected POS Prime Minister is completely breathtaking. Having campaigned during the last election on a platform of “no Government I lead will impose a Carbon Tax”, here we are not even 6 months later, she gives us all the middle finger and plans to introduce it anyway. Never mind the fact that the science it is based on is completely bogus and the world’s biggest polluters won’t go anywhere near it, we continue to get taxed out of existence. And of course in true Labor fashion, it gets aired late Friday/ early Saturday. I can’t wait to see all the usual rusted on ALP hacks on this forum, come here and try to defend the indefensible. An outright lie from an outright liar. Thanks Oakeshott & Windsor. I hope you’re happy.

    • Whiney Boy says:

      08:44pm | 13/02/11

      There’s gonna be a carbon tax GB.
      Get used to it.
      Stop your nonsense or go back to GB.

    • Matthew says:

      10:22am | 12/02/11

      Julia Gillard 4 days before the election : “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”

      Wayne Swan during the eleciton campaign : “We have made our position very clear, we have ruled it out”

      ThePunch when Julia announces a carbon tax in 2012 “............................”

    • jeffb says:

      04:38pm | 12/02/11

      All this talk of Labor ruling out a carbon tax before the election is childish, you’re ignoring the fact that the Greens will control the senate leaving either party with little choice but to take action on climate change if they want to form a working government.

      You’re also ignoring that both parties failed to win the election, a pretty significant point you would think, the current government is a coalition led by Labor. If you can’t understand what that means I’m not sure why you’re bothering to comment on politics.

    • Ben81 says:

      08:29pm | 12/02/11

      Wow jeffb that’s just a sad, sad post.

    • jeffb says:

      04:57pm | 13/02/11

      Its reality Ben81, given the number of people on this blog that have repeated Labor’s promise that they wouldn’t introduce a carbon tax as if it means anything now clearly don’t understand the political system they are attempting to comment on.

    • Ben81 says:

      05:35pm | 13/02/11

      No jeffb it’s a copout, and if you truly believe that politicians are suddenly not accountable for their words, especially explicit things told to voters during an election campaign, just because they’re desperately trying to hold on to power then as I said that’s just sad.

      About 13% of voters gave their vote to a party pushing for a carbon tax, 0% voted for a Labor-Greens coalition, and if Labor decides to do a deal with them to stay in government after the election that’s their bloody problem, I’m not wiping their slate clean for some ridiculous reason.  You are the one who clearly has no understanding, especially with your idea that a Greens balance of power in the senate means a carbon tax must be pushed through.  Pathetic.

    • jeffb says:

      08:11am | 14/02/11

      They didn’t win.

      They have had to negotiate a deal with the Greens and independents to form a coalition government.

      This is reality not “some ridiculous reason”.

      If the LNP was in power they would also have to deal with the Greens.

      If either party doesn’t make compromises to the Greens, then the Greens won’t make compromises to support either party which will end in a deadlocked senate. Its really that simple.

      By your logic we should be crying murder over promises that Abbott made before the election but will fail to fulfil.

      The % numbers you give are juvenile and completely ignore the preferential nature of our electoral system.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:00pm | 14/02/11

      Extremely weak jeffb, of course it’s ridiculous, again, to excuse anything a political leader says during an election campaign just because they are desperate to stay in government. I’m aware of what happened after the election.

      “If the LNP was in power they would also have to deal with the Greens”
      No, if you remember what actually happened instead of trying to rewrite history, they were trying to strike a deal with independents, convincing them to support their policies and seeing what else could be done to win them over that doesn’t compromise those policies and promises.  Forming government with a rival party that clearly does compromise all of that is a completely different thing altogether.  Both parties have to “deal with the greens”, only one is bending over for them.

      “If either party doesn’t make compromises to the Greens, then the Greens won’t make compromises to support either party which will end in a deadlocked senate. Its really that simple.”
      Rubbish, you’ll find that the Greens and others in the senate aren’t going to just rubber stamp bills by either party, and we’re kinda talking about the house of reps here, assuming you even know the difference.  I’m beginning to doubt that.

      “By your logic we should be crying murder over promises that Abbott made before the election but will fail to fulfil.”
      Did Tony Abbott go to the governor general and demonstrate that he has formed a majority that can pass bills etc, making him the PM and his front bench ministers instead of shadow ministers?  No?  Then just what the hell are you talking about?

      “The % numbers you give are juvenile and completely ignore the preferential nature of our electoral system. “
      Sorry, what?  Shall I break it down to primary votes and preferential distributions for you, just to give you similar numbers for some reason?  Are there some less ‘juvenile”(yeah good one mate) numbers I can show you?  Perhaps the number of seats held by each party, to make you look even worse?
      God what a twit.

    • Ben81 says:

      01:20pm | 14/02/11

      And to add to that, introducing a carbon tax is *not* a compromise,  it’s much bigger than that, and it’s something that will effect everyone’s cost of living. 
      “There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead”
      There it is, she either sticks to that and says no to the Greens or she’s a liar.  If you think for a second Tony Abbott would bend over that far for them you need your head read.

    • jeffb says:

      02:47pm | 14/02/11

      “No, if you remember what actually happened instead of trying to rewrite history, they were trying to strike a deal with independents, convincing them to support their policies and seeing what else could be done to win them over that doesn’t compromise those policies and promises.  Forming government with a rival party that clearly does compromise all of that is a completely different thing altogether.  Both parties have to “deal with the greens”, only one is bending over for them”

      “Rubbish, you’ll find that the Greens and others in the senate aren’t going to just rubber stamp bills by either party, and we’re kinda talking about the house of reps here, assuming you even know the difference.  I’m beginning to doubt that.”

      I’m not sure if you realise it but in the middle of this year the Greens will take a position in the senate where both sides have to deal with them whether they like it or not. Getting the numbers in the house means nothing if the government can’t get their bills through the senate.

      Of course no one is going to rubber stamp anything, that’s why we see parties compromising on key points in the interest of delivering a working government for Australia.

      Perhaps you should calm down a bit and take a look from a neutral perspective. Gillard’s election promises hold as much weight as Abbott’s, they both lost.

    • Ben81 says:

      05:27pm | 14/02/11

      “Perhaps you should calm down a bit and take a look from a neutral perspective.”
      Says a guy looking for excuses, and implying that election promises don’t actually mean anything because Labor wants to hold on to power at any cost.  You still don’t get it, and I doubt you will.  This is not a “compromise”, it’s a direct contradiction of what voters were told.  If any so called compromise with the Greens goes that far Gillard needs to say no, end of story.  The Greens can take it or leave it, they want power too.

      “I’m not sure if you realise it but in the middle of this year the Greens will take a position in the senate where both sides have to deal with them whether they like it or not. Getting the numbers in the house means nothing if the government can’t get their bills through the senate.”
      ...which has what exactly to do with pushing a carbon tax through the senate in the first place?  Are you saying the Greens are going to hold the government and opposition to ransom, and not let anything else pass until the carbon tax goes through?  What planet are you on mate?

    • Matthew says:

      10:24am | 12/02/11

      Why do columnists always fail to dig a bit deeper.  55% support the levy.  Guess how many people are immune from paying it.

      Blogger 101 ... don’t mention the pertinent facts, just the ones that suit my bias.

    • Vaunted says:

      11:02am | 12/02/11

      Oh really? What 55% of what people?

    • Jedi_T says:

      11:03am | 12/02/11

      Nice!
      But we all suffer from it, at some stage or another.
      I think a poll would be more accurate if it was only taking on people who are not exempt to it.

    • ian f says:

      11:48am | 12/02/11

      and did you see the poll on the left wing Age yesterday

      Would you support a carbon tax.
      YES 11%
      NO 89%

    • Mouse says:

      08:34pm | 12/02/11

      Oh gee! Another levy! We already have a Save the Murray levy and an Emergency services levy (which were supposed to be a one offs btw), now a Qld flood levy. Can we also expect next a Cyclone levy, a NSW flood levy, a Vic flood levy, a WA bushfire levy and, if the river keeps rising as it is, a SA flood levy? People keep saying that it is very Australian to help each other out. Yes, it is. BUT, this levy is not to help other Aussies rebuild their homes, lost crops, chattels, etc. No, this levy is to pay for the rebuilding of government infrastructure that the government has to replace. This is the same infrastructure that was not insured by that state government. (All other states pay many $ annually for insurance to cover theirs.) So, because of this, the federal government has to pay 75% of Qld’s rebuilding costs. Okay…Gillard tells us that the majority of Australians support this levy, an “expression of goodwill between Australians”. She has poll results to prove it. I understand the cross section was mainly women and young adults but I am not sure of where they lived. Also, if you earn under $50k a year or were affected by the Qld flood, you will not contribute to the levy. They want us to pay $1.8b. The number of Aussies that will be paying would be what, 4 or 5 million, less? (Does that include politicians? Or do they get free medical so don’t pay a Medicare LEVY?) As payment will be a % of your wages, it doesn’t take a mathematical genius to work out that those that do have to pay are going to be slugged like wounded bulls. If this is such an expression of goodwill, why don’t we all have to contribute?  Correct me if I am wrong, please, but don’t we pay taxes,  GST,  fuel tax,  etc?  What does the government do with that?  Isn’t Qld one of the BIG mining states, BIG tourist state? Where is their money?  Is a return to surplus so vital to Gillard that a minority of Australians will be hit again in the pocket?

    • Gregg says:

      10:48am | 12/02/11

      I suppose it’s always going to be more than a little Mark in how the weather is read and you know what they say about taking the weather down south?
      No need to when you can have four seasons in one day! and they thought a week in politics was a long time.

      As for Katter’s view, it is always more about what he can get for his constituents and Bob will usually come out as Quick Draw McGraw, pistols ablazing but even he can realise that it is not so much whether you have a levy or not but which government can provide for a better long term fiscal situation for the nation.
      And there is no mistaking that Gillard has been in a government that has bled the nations wealth into the pockets of who knows who for what result we may well ask and without it all there would be far more flexibility in funding recovery from natural disasters.

      Gillard still even admits there is more fat in the budget and she has not even made reference to off budget borrowings for the farcical NBN though she has seen the need to appoint an ex Liberal to oversee spending but that is more a cunning cover for herself and past failings.

      As more light is cast on what the Krudd Gillard policies mean for Australians, you’ll have Katter looking at the alternatives as well may Crook for he is still learning the ropes.
      Gillard has also learnt of some new ropes very quickly it would seem in the past few weeks for there have been belated references to the established NDRRA approach as well as stealing a page from that ” We’re Queenslanders cry ”

      The Greens despite Uncle Bob’s weekly session on leadership are somewhat gobsmacked so to say who may best weather the Levy is somewhat premature.
      There has in fact been considerable support for Abbott suggesting that water buy backs can be deferred for the inland and MMD basin is awash with water and the latters health will be great for many years to come as it usually is after massive flooding events of the cyclical nature that Australia’s weather is.

      I have seen one report that this on/off/on/off again Carbon Tax is not now scheduled until 2012 and perhaps the whichever Julia is having more of a focus weathering again!
      Perhaps it’ll be nore than just many normal Australians who will be wondering on what way will whichever Julia be blown to next and that is not at all too great for Australia for as well as good policies, consistent policy is needed and that we do not get with Gillard and in fact you wonder if some independents may be questioning just what ammount of truth variances have been fed them.

    • Blue Boy says:

      11:07am | 12/02/11

      Did you know, 76.4% of all statistics are made up on the spot to support otherwise groundless arguments?

    • Stephy says:

      08:18pm | 12/02/11

      Homer: “Anyone can make up statistics, Ken, 14% of all people know that”.

      And my statistician husband would disagree with you.

    • Ben81 says:

      11:22am | 12/02/11

      Nothing Australia does, from putting a price on carbon to completely closing down will change average world temperatures by any measurable amount at all, fact.  It’s plain stupid to press on with this alone.  It’s so pointless it’s almost funny.  We were lied to before the election about it. 
      How the hell is the government getting away with this?

    • Ben81 says:

      11:55am | 12/02/11

      “Katter said he was ``boxed in’’ and in the end, could not stand between his cyclone-devastated constituents and vital Commonwealth assistance.”
      Too bad that assistance is coming no matter what happens with the debate over how it’s paid for.  It kinda would have been smarter to put that to his constituents first, oh well.

      “Mr Abbott made worse when it emerged his (largely unnecessary) alternative savings measures relied mainly on deferrals rather than cuts; did not nearly match the levy in the 2011/12 year (the shortfall is around $1 billion); and involved cutting an anti-terrorism aid program in Indonesia started by the Howard Government.”
      What a silly take on things.  Simply brushing off proposed cuts/deferrals as ‘unnecessary’ is just lazy and without substance, and he’s suggested deferrals as part of cost saving options to put to the government from day one.  Why is that a problem, does deferring budgeted spending not free up money in the budget?
      The only ‘shortfall’ here is the reason Labor are trying to impose a levy in the first place, and are you referring to funding in religious schools there or something when you say ‘anti-terrorism aid’?  Either way, is cutting costs from anything John Howard started off limits for some silly reason?

      Oh man, I think i’ll just leave it there before I have to write a short essay about any other paragraphs.  You have a very interesting way of looking at things Mark Kenny.

    • Steely Dan says:

      09:37am | 13/02/11

      Is this the same news.com.au that predicted Howard would increase his majority in 2007?

      So news.com.au doesn’t like the carbon tax.  And the Organic Lesbian Alliance Weekly does.  I’m shocked.  Amazed.

    • NoNames says:

      05:12am | 14/02/11

      Price on carbon? Thanks, we do know.

      46% in favour over 44% agin it, as of the latest Nielsen/Herald poll.

    • Democrat says:

      06:35pm | 12/02/11

      The dark clouds around theAbbott are as dark as the ones the ones on his face when he had no response to a question he knew 2 hours beforehand was coming.  His colleagues know that his leadership is not sustainable. Th No must Go.

    • LAD says:

      05:47am | 13/02/11

      Why are you so concerned about Abbott? Interesting how Gillard supporters want Abbott to go.

    • Angry God of Townsville says:

      08:10am | 13/02/11

      Democrat, do you honestly (I know that is an dirty word to the ALP) believe that Tony Abbott knew that Riley was going to present editted footage with incorrect subtitles and accusse him of making light of a soldiers death. Riley did not inform Abbott’s department that he had modified the footage and incorrectly subtitled the moment in question.

      Abbott would have gone to the interview ready to explain what had actually happened and was caught out by a lie of Riley’s making. That the ALP’s dirt unit thinks that this is somehow detrimental to Abbott shows how low they they are willing to go to hold on to the power in which they crave.

      The Oakes article is testimony to their desperation, you can smell the fear of Abbott in your paid for by the ALP comments and in your shameless use of Lies to smear your opposition. The ALP is no longer the party of the worker, it is the party of the corruptocrat, clinging to power and screw the rest of us.

    • Jedi_T says:

      10:52am | 13/02/11

      Democrat,
      PLease stay on the subject and not Abbott bash.
      Here everyone is talking about the the big green lie Gillard told.
      “There will not be a Carbon Tax under any Govt I lead”
      Does that mean she is standing down?
      Or that she is being ousted by her party?
      Or has Abbott done what you all thought was undo-able and stripped her of the majority by turning the independants?

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:31pm | 12/02/11

      When the carbon tariff walls start being erected around regions like the European Union, and eventually China and United States, then Australia can console itself with the fact that at least it didn’t impose a carbon tax…...

    • Larry Fien says:

      10:52pm | 12/02/11

      @demo,Abbott will be around to play with the lame duck for a while and middle class welfare and foreign aid are in his sights,socialism is on its way to the treatment works with rudd,Have a lovely day

    • James says:

      09:16am | 13/02/11

      im with you beth, who casres if we screw this planet up. its not like i am going to be hear when it all goes wrong. why should i pay more now!

    • Colin J Ely says:

      10:54am | 13/02/11

      Surely even the lazy latte sipping Proletariat is begining to wake up? What was it John Thwaites said, ‘you cant have a dam because dams don’t make water?’ I hope @alcotrel is writing his articles on a computer powered by a Traeger Pedal-Powered Generator? Do we all remember the guy who flew across the English Channel in a human powered aircraft? Perhaps we Australians could chip in and buy one for our new Climate Change Ambassador? Are they going to dig up some of the precious parkland in Adam Bandt’s electorate to erect a couple of wind turbines?
      BTW, what is going to happen in Parliament with the Greens? Are they going to desert their principles to vote for the ALP’s wishy-washy, lets subsidise everyone Carbon Tax, or are they going to hold true to their ideological principles and vote for THEIR scheme of no scheme?

    • persephone says:

      01:39pm | 13/02/11

      Colin

      because John Thwaites was talking during a drought. There was no rain, so a dam would not have helped.

      As I had conversations with John Thwaites at the time about potentially extending an existing dam, and in fact lead a delegation which went to speak to him about exactly that, I know he was more flexible about the issue than you imply.

      The real ‘killer’ of new dams was the Murray Darling agreement - put in place under a Howard government - which limited the amount of water states could ‘keep’.

      To release more water from the Snowy, for example, meant that the Victorian government had to ‘save’ water elsewhere, which led to the decommisioning of Lake Mokoan.

    • Colin J Ely says:

      08:30pm | 13/02/11

      @persephone
      So why wasn’t the raising of an existing dam wall mentioned? Yes we were in the middle of a drought, but even then the Mitchell River flooded twice, resulting in the untimely death of one person and more water flowing out into the Southern Ocean than Melbourne uses.
      Your friend Mr Brumby made much out of the fact that Lake Mokoan loses more water from evaporation than it holds, that’s why it was decommissioned. After Brumby put a bulldozer through the dam wall there were flooding rains up there and Benalla was flooded. That’s when the old timers spoke up and said that Lake Mokoan was never built as a water storage, it was built for flood mitigation.
      I too spoke to John Thwaites from time to time many years ago when he was a Ministerial Adviser to Jim Crennan SC, maybe instead of reading briefing notes he would have been better spent using his time to read the collected works of Dorothea MacKellar? wink

    • Against the Man says:

      01:11pm | 13/02/11

      So KRudd throws a tantrum when he found out they were chucking his health care reforms. Anyone surprised? This reflects what a terrible political party the ALP is. Bad policies to no policies to policies that constant change without any results. And during this whole time taxpayer monies is wasted. Rudd and Gillard have sealed their legacy of shame. They know that. It really is about damage they can do to us before they get the final boot.

    • rahrah says:

      01:13pm | 13/02/11

      Has anyone else noticed most online news outlets have taken down any story related to this? I have noticed this happens often whenever Labor stuff up…

    • NoNames says:

      05:13pm | 13/02/11

      Oh goody. Fantasyland.

      Just what we need.

    • Democrat says:

      09:32pm | 13/02/11

      He he.  Just love the ocnservative creationists at it again.  The leadership tensions in the Liberal Party are on view for all to see.  No need for anybody who believes in a fair and just society to make anything up.  The Tories have a leader who cannot even articulate an answer when questioned on a subject for which he was given two hours notice.  This was the same man who said on assuming the leadership that there would be no new taxes introduced under his watch but who almost immediately proposed a LEVY (thats right a LEVY) to implement a paid parental leave scheme that was going to benefit the wealthiest in our community !
      Guess it’s sTORY time for the conservatives again.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Anthony Sharwood

#markwebber just wasted petrol faster than everyone else in monaco #f1

Anthony Sharwood

In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!

Daniel Piotrowski

The Logies could learn a lot from Eurovision #lamethings#sbseurovision

Daniel Piotrowski

RT @ellehardytweets: Already despondent about the next fifty one weeks. #sbseurovision

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it

An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

Our special forces don’t always need special treatment

We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

A good holiday is about unrest, not rest

Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter